This photo is the view from my front porch. What you are seeing is a moving river of stormwater extending from my front yard, across Fleming Street, and into the IC ISD playground. There is a mathematical formula that is used to determine the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces. Before the passage of the 2019 school bonds, I used that formula and publicly made a point to IC ISD, the Mertzon City Council and fellow citizens that this degree of flooding would occur if they proceeded with construction. I was ignored, and I have had to continue to speak out because the new 2024 bonds are being used to redistribute even more storm water into this same basin. Regretfully, this photo makes my point that I am correct. All of this water ends up at City Park where IC ISD, the City and the County all share public land - making this an unfortunate example of government flooding itself.
Below is the agenda for this meeting, and underneath that are my agenda analysis and meeting analysis.
A. Agenda analysis
See my meeting analysis below. I have incorporated my agenda analysis into the meeting analysis.
One of the first things I said to Supt. Moore when she began to study the drainage issue was "follow the gravel". The huge volume of water from a storm like the one on November 7 moves large amounts of sand and gravel from higher locations. This is because the streets are improperly used as aqueducts for the District's stormwater. That gravel is what builds up the shoulder and retains the stormwater on the pavement. Here is an example of the previous clean up by the City. Of course, what does not stop here is washed onto my property, without my permission, shown in the background.
B. Meeting analysis 1. Design and construction, agenda item 8: After a discussion with Parkhill's Chip Whitlock, the Board approved these plans to go out for bid, via Gallagher, to construct the new transportation and maintenance facility at the intersection of 5th and W. Fleming and to construct the addition to the field house at the OK Wolfenbarger stadium (football field) for additional storage.
Commentary on this vote:
a. Stormwater: I have actively discouraged the District from building the facilities at 5th and Fleming because the proposed facilities will add even more stormwater to the basin that is already flooding, shown in the photo at the top of this page. I have also proactively requested and not yet received the topo and lidar data already created by Parkhill that will help verify the additional quantity of stormwater that will be added and where the drainage will go. Moreover, I have published this website to substantiate and inform the community that the stormwater created by the the Districts capital improvements flood city streets, private property and our public park.
Yet, notwithstanding all of these efforts, one can readily ascertain from this discussion at this meeting that there is still resistance on the Board to addressing stormwater. "I heard we weren't doing anything with that!" one board member blurted out when the issue was being introduced by Mr. Whitlock. Mr. Whitlock carefully replied, "We aren't but we are."
This kind of "we aren't but we are" response by Mr. Whitlock, an agent of the District, regretfully confirms my opinion that has been brewing since the community committee pre bond meetings in April 2024: it would not be the Board who would protect our community from stormwater. Rather, it would be the District's agents - the Parkhill's and the Gallagher's - who would do so out of legal necessity. As I said publicly to the City Counsel last month, to date since 2016 not one school board member has publicly or privately to me expressed an ounce of concern that my property, our streets or our City Park was being flooded from District stormwater. Their silence on the matter continues to be....deafening.
What progress on the issue that might still occur, however, turns on governmental immunity and liability insurance coverage. Even the Mertzon City Council (who like the Board still has members resistant to solving stormwater flooding) has come to its senses that governmental immunity is not a bullet proof defense, as evidenced by their closing the flooded portion of W. Fleming. City council members can't intentionally allow city streets to be used as aqueducts and expect to be individually protected under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Likewise, a school district and its board members can't rely on governmental immunity when they knowingly dump their stormwater in such a way as to endanger children and flood the community. The District's argument that once their stormwater enters the street it is the problem of the City of Mertzon is not a legal defense. Just ask Parkhill and Gallagher whether their legal counsel are willing to bet on their liability insurance carrier covering a claim where there is a sea of evidence that the District is making the flooding worse with its new construction. The fact remains that Parkhill and Gallagher have to comply with stormwater law as well. They know well that their own liability insurance and the District's Tort Claim Act immunities will not be a guaranteed protection, so they, Parkhill and Gallagher, have the economic incentive to get this right… in spite of a board member's thoughtless comment, "I heard we weren't doing anything with that!"
b. Stormwater Plans are pending. Mr. Whitlock confirmed that the plans for the stormwater retentiion/detention structures would be complete and to Gallagher in the February/ March timeframe. Our community should recognize that if the plans are in this stage of development then Parkhill should already have data on how much stormwater is coming down the respective two basins AND how much the new construction will add to the basins AND where they anticipate redirecting the water away from new buildings. The two structures will be at the corners of 2nd and Juanita and along W. Fleming and 4th streets, assuming they are finally built. (The board member's comment above is reason enough to remain circumspect about the District's actual intentions.) c. There's more than enough bond money. Another part of this discussion underscores that the $53 million bond will be more than enough to accomplish the publicly stated goals of the bond, plus more for the unstated goals. The vote at this board meeting included additional storage to the field house at the football field, a project which was not disclosed prior to the 2024 bond vote. In addition, funds are planned to be used to redo the bleachers in Estes Gym, also not disclosed to voters. Keep in mind that in 2020 dollars City Gym cost $9 - $10 million, so the 2024 bond dollars could theoretically build 4 to 5 new 30,000+ square foot gymnasiums. All this is to say that the $53 million of bonds means that the District is sitting on a lot of money. There is more than enough bond money to successfully tackle stormwater. "Successful" includes building stormwater projects that can be scaled with future school bonds. Remember, there have been bonds in 2013, 2019 and now 2024. Expect more capital improvements on the campus again in 2029, if not sooner, because in 2025 the Matterhorn pipeline should be fully appraised by the appraisal district. c. Location, location, location: This discussion also revealed a possible change in location of the proposed marching field from the west side of the Band Hall to the east side of Band Hall. One might wonder whether the City and the District have come to any agreement on the MOU to close 3rd Street. There have been no agenda items on the City's meeting notices addressing this issue after this meeting, so there is reason to believe the District is moving forward without the City.
Coincidentally, the east side location was once voted on as the alternate site for City Gym. Its attraction then, as now, is that any construction would be on property already owned by the District and would not require a street closure. Had the Board moved forward with this alternate location back then it is quite likely that this blog would not exist
2. Retention Stipend, item 11: The Board approved fall retention stipend of $1,500. I'm sure they are grateful for anything, but remember the Legislature and Governor totally failed them in the last biennium. And, school vouchers are regretfully almost a certainty for 2025. 3. Audit Report, item 7: I intend to further review this item once I look at the actual audit report. The District has a new auditor, so there is reason to look it over. 4. Closed session, items 14 and 16: The Board did not vote on any items coming out of closed session. As to the items discussed in closed, I am aware of no specific exemption in the Open Meetings Act that would permit a closed session for 14. b. Track Equipment / Co Purchase. I don't know what that is, but given the budget debacle by Coach Conner under the previous administration concerning track equipment it is worth paying attention to. 5. Everything else: As stated earlier, I did not attend this meeting but reviewed the audio after I did an open records request for it. I may amend this page in the future.
With winter upon us, below is a video reminder of what W. Fleming Street is like when its shoulder is not properly maintained. This makes my point that it is not in the public's interest to dump stormwater into City streets. Stormwater dumping makes our streets unsafe, especially when the ground freezes.
Finally, down stream, this football field photo shows the debris line from the November 7 storm. Any more rain and the field would certainly have flooded.
Copyright 2024 G Noelke